If the FCC Chairman's plans, announced today, are adopted, this means that Internet service providers would not be able to treat some Internet traffic better than other Internet traffic (for a fee, of course), and will have to treat all traffic equally. (With some exceptions, like managing their networks.) That's "net neutrality."

This is generally perceived as good news for Internet companies like Google and Facebook, and not-as-great news for telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. (Though the telecom lobbyists should get a bonus, too, for preventing Genachowski from "reclassifying" broadband services, which would have opened a whole new can of worms for the telcos.)

But because the ISPs won't be able to set up express lanes with toll booths anymore -- not kosher, per net neutrality regulations -- they're going to have to find growth somewhere. And it's going to come directly from your pocket now.

As online video -- via sites like Netflix and Apple's iTunes -- becomes more popular, it's adding more cost to the ISP business, without adding more revenue.

So the ISPs will have to find their revenue growth by getting rid of all-you-can-eat broadband access, which millions of Americans have enjoyed for more than a decade, and by starting to charge Internet users by how much bandwidth they consume.

If it's priced in a way that's not offensive, this seems fair. That's how you pay for electricity, heating and cooking gas, and water, so why shouldn't it be the way you pay for Internet access?

But we get the sense that people just aren't going to like it. Too many people think they should be able to get everything they want on the Internet for free. So it's probably going to get ugly, and it could take a long time to roll out.

But let's face it, it's inevitable: Your all-you-can-eat Internet plan is likely going to be history. And if you watch a lot of Netflix and Hulu online, your Internet bill is probably going to go up substantially.

Just because online video is the future, doesn't mean it's going to be cheap.

Wow. This is the new low for Mr. Frommer. Now he acts like a bitch for cable and telecom lobby. The most gross redefinition of Net Neutrality.

From reading the proposal so far there are only two points:
1. No censorship of content.
2. Full disclosure of network management techniques so consumers know what providers are doing to their broadband connections.

In other words, all tollbooths are going to be called "Network management techniques" instead of "Censorship".

If the current proposal from FCC Chairman is so bad about the Cable companies why:
TWC is up 4%?
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWC
CMCSA is up 4%?
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ACMCSA

As usual, the bureaucrat in Worthington DC just got bought by big telecom. Just say: Buy, buy Free Internet. Now we are going to have something very similar to current cable TV system. You pay and Comcast will tell you what you can see and what not.

Here's the deal Dano, what happens when you try to access wikileaks and it's blocked by your ISP? What if there's a site called "Comcastsucks.com" and it's blocked by your provider...Comcast?

What happens when Rupert Murdoch buys Comcast? You realize that most markets are monopolized by companies like Comcast, right?

Are you fucking stupid or what?

Net neutrality = FREE SPEECH

Believe it or not, the internet is not just a place for porn, it's become the de facto medium for news. Allowing some ISP the privilege of censoring the internet is blasphemy.

And maybe you're just technologically challenged, but people are already limited to bandwidth. So I can only download so much, so fast NOW!

The excuse that bandwidth is why Comcast wants to bundle the internet like they bundle HBO and Showtime is a JOKE.

Cable companies want to profit, that's it. They're afraid of Netflix and Torrents stealing their business. Not to mention they want to charge their customers to access sites they don't even fucking run.

That's fine, I'll pay more for more bandwidth, just stay the fuck out of my internet.